MITHILESH SINGH ,LUDHIANA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(1), LUDHIANA , LUDHIANA

ITA 974/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Mithilesh Singh against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention revolves around the ex-parte order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the subsequent additions made under sections 69A and 115BBE concerning unexplained cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Tribunal found the CIT (A)'s order to be non-speaking and inadequate in addressing the merits of the case, leading to the decision to set aside the orders and remand the matter back to the AO for a detailed examination and fair hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712140 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Keywords: Set aside; Source of fund
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ , चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 974/CHD/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Mithilesh Singh, R/o H.No. B12, BRS Nagar, PWSSB Colony, Ludhiana. बनाम VS The ITO, Ward 6(1), Ludhiana. èथायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: DFWPS1033D अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : None (Adjournment Application ) राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 15.07.2025 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 23.07.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING आदेश/ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 27.05.2024 passed for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri Pankaj Bhalla filed an application for adjournment. However, after perusal of the record, we do not find any ground to adjourn the hearing. Printed from counselvise.com ITA-974/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 2 3. With the assistance of ld. DR, we have gone through the record carefully. We find that impugned order of the ld. CIT is totally non speaking, which reads as under : The appeal is filed against the order of ITO, Ward-VII(4),JCIT-VII,CIT- lll,Ludhiana,Panjab passed u/s 144 of the I T Act 1961, dated 20.12.2019. 1. Ground no.1 & 2 objects to passing the order exparte u/s 144 due to non- cooperation of the assessee. 2. Ground no.3 objects to addition made u/s 69A read with section 115BBE. Cash deposits of Rs.8453500 made during the relevant FY including the demonetization period, was rightly treated by the AO as unexplained money u/s69A. The above amount is from undisclosed sources, tax will be charged on the income as per provision of section 115BBE. 3. Ground no.4 objects to addition of Rs.8000 on account of estimated income of credit entries in the bank statement u/s69A. In the absence of any explanation from the assessee on the nature of debit/credit entries, it is presumed that credit entries may be receipts from some sources of income liable to tax. On these credits receipt of income is estimated by the AO at the rate of 8% worked out at Rs.8000 . The addition of Rs.8000 is confirmed. 4. Ground on initiation of penal proceedings u/s271 AAC is consequential in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. 5. The last ground is general in nature and does not require any separate adjudication. 6. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.” 4. Sub-clause (6) of Section 250 contemplates that ld. CIT (Appeals) would state the points of dispute and thereafter record reasons in support of the conclusion on those points. Though the appeal has been dismissed for want of prosecution and assessment order was also ex-parte, but ld. CIT ought to have call for the complete information possessed by the AO and thereafter, adjudicate the issue on merit. We also find that Printed from counselvise.com ITA-974/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 3 addition has been made by the AO on account of cash deposit in the Union Bank of India during demonetization. 5. Considering the ex-parte orders, we deem it appropriate to set aside both the orders and restore this issue to the file of AO for re-adjudication. The ld. AO will grant due opportunity of hearing to the assessee and the assessee is directed to cooperate with the AO by filing requisite details exhibiting the source of alleged deposit in the bank account. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 23rd July,2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "